i agree with ken, that the model of the gordon conferences is not for
everyone.
i participated in three. i would not consider them elite conferences,
however. the idea is to enable scholars at the cutting edge of their field
to converse about topics under development, not yet ready for publication.
this has the advantage of allowing people to be more free to share their
ideas even about theories that may not work out in the future.
i think we should have some gordon-like conferences. publications are
usually for younger scholars that have to develop their publication records
for promotions etc. or for older scholars who have something to say to the
world. gordon-style conferences are to advance the field
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Conversational conferences
Dear Dick,
The Gordon Research Conferences provide an interesting and important model.
We can certainly adapt some features of this model in conferences -- this,
for example, is what we did at La Clusaz with a single track and extensive
time for conversation, along with a feature that the Gordon conferences
purposely avoid: tracking the conversation.
There are two aspects of the Gordon Research Conference model that may cause
some discomfort in our field.
The first of these is that the Gordon Research Conferences are deliberately
elite conferences. They don't involve publishing because they invite
scholars who have a strong publishing record or distinguished research
potential The idea of the conference involves egalitarian networking among a
group that the conference chair of any given conference identifies as a
member of the elite or the potential elite.
The second problem is related to a distinct virtue -- but it remains a
problem for many. The fact that there are no conference publications and the
fact that publications flowing from the conference network are enjoined not
to mention the conference would make participation impossible for those
whose national or university policies require publication to secure funding.
There are similar elite conferences in other fields where the elite
reputation of the conference and the prestige of an invitation is so great
that schools are happy to send participants even though there is no
published record. Nevertheless, in most schools, the decision of the
department head is required for funding approval and some schools (or
nations) allow no exceptions to policies. As a professor at a class one
research university, attending a Gordon Research Conference would have been
no problem for you. This model would not work for anyone who requires a
proceedings publication as a condition of funding.
I have mixed feelings about the entire conference business. As I said at the
session on conferences, it may well be that the current DRS peer-reviewed
paper policy needs rethinking. It's clear that across most fields, nearly no
conference papers and relatively few journal papers are actually used or
cited. This suggests the model may be wearing thin in many fields. (David
Durling and I take delight in the frequent citation of papers from the La
Clusaz proceedings. David managed the review process for La Clusaz, so there
may be something to be said for David's version of peer review.)
In terms of your earlier note -- and Chris Nippert-Eng's -- I want to add
that I prefer conversation to "reading" a paper. While I always try to
deliver a full manuscript, I never read it. I write it out, and then I build
a talk around the key ideas in the written paper.
Sometimes I use a mind map. Sometimes I even use the ancient rhetorical
device of a memory theater.
While I have until recently avoided PowwerPoint, in recent years I have come
to realize that large key words and carefully selected text excerpts
(LARGE!) are a major help to people whose native languages are different to
my own. The first time I saw Kun-Pyo Lee present with PowerPoint, I
understood that PowerPoint could illuminate a presentation. I still have not
attained Kun-Pyo's level of visual mastery, but I have added big words to my
spoken repertoire. This restricts my rhetorical development, to be sure, but
I have learned in Brazil, Taiwan, and elsewhere that those who speak other
languages find the visual cues a great help.
On the main point -- conversational conferences -- there must surely be a
way that we can add this to our conference repertoire while meeting the
needs of those who are constrained by governmental or local policy.
Ken Friedman
|